From: Sam Roberts <sroberts@...>
Date: 2003-06-28T22:49:36+09:00
Subject: Re: DBD for Oracle9i

Quoteing kubo@jiubao.org, on Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 04:33:35PM +0900:
> Jim Cain <list@jimcain.us> writes:
> >> Just reading this excerpt, I notice the sentence:
> >> 
> >>   Such a contradiction means you cannot use both them and the Library
> >>   together in an executable that you distribute.
> >> 
> >> My library and the Oracle client library will not be distributed 
> >> together. It is up to the user of my library to acquire and install the 
> >> Oracle client library.

But if your DBD is used by somebody to build an application for a client,
and that somebody delivers to their client ruby, the oracle DBD, their
ruby code, and the Oracle9i libraries (an entire working application),
then that somebody will have broken this licence, even though you
haven't (you can't, actually, because you wrote the code, you'd have to
prosecute yourself, and I *hope* that no court would hear the case if
you tried :-).

Sam

> Quote from the section 6 of the LGPL:
>    For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the
>    Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for
>    reproducing the executable from it. However, as a special
>    exception, the materials to be distributed need not include
>    anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
>    form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of
>    the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that
>    component itself accompanies the executable.
> 
> Hmm, some products which bundle the proprietary library have no
> contradiction. But some products (including free softwares) without
> the proprietary library could not be distributed.
> 
> > Oh, I should have added... a copyright-holder using the LGPL, or even 
> > GPL, is free to add a special exemption for a specific non-free library 
> > which it requires.
> 
> Agree.
> 
> In addition authors and users are free from the section 6 of the
> LGPL. The distributors of the LGPLed library are also free from the
> restriction. It is up to the distributors of the executable that uses
> the LGPLed library.
> 
> I'm not interested in the philosophy. I just want to know the
> restriction of the LGPL.
> 
> Cheers
> -- 
> KUBO Takehiro
>